Supreme Court of India
MANIVEL & ORS.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 918
- Decided
- 8 August 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The conviction was upheld because the circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, satisfied all legal requirements, leaving no reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt.
Summary
The accused Manivel and others were convicted of murder and abetment under Sections 302 and 201 IPC based on circumstantial evidence that the victim was last seen with them at night and his body was found the next morning. The appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that the "last seen" theory was inapplicable and that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient. The Supreme Court reiterated the established principles governing convictions on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that all incriminating facts must be incompatible with innocence and form a complete, unbroken chain. It held that the prosecution had satisfied the requisite tests, including the short time gap between the last sighting and discovery of the body, thereby validating the "last seen" theory. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial and High Court judgments.
Issues considered
- Whether a conviction can be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence under Indian law.
- Whether the "last seen" theory applies when the time gap between the last sighting of the deceased with the accused and the discovery of the body is short.
- Whether the prosecution evidence meets the established tests for circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 174
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302
Subjects
circumstantial evidencelast seen theorymurderconvictionIndian Penal CodeSection 302Section 201burden of proofcriminal law
Judgment
[2008] 11S.C.R.1036
"f
,_
A MANIVEL & ORS. \.--
v. I
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
i
'
(Criminal Appeal No. 473 of 2001)
B
AUGUST 8, 2008 -t-
.
',
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM I
\.-
SHARMA, JJ]
Evidence:
c Circumstantiai evidence - Deceased last seen in the
i
company of accused in the evening and in the following mom-
ing found dead in a well - On basis of evidence of prosecution f-
t--
witnesses and the circumstantial evidence, trial court and High
Court convicting accused u/ss 302 and 201 /PC - HELD: f
D Conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence if
all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be .J.
incompatible with innocence of accused and guilt of any other
person - As regards last seen theory, it comes into play where
the time gap between the point of time when the accused and
E the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is l
found dead is so small that possibility of any other person
than the accused being the author of the crime becomes im-
possible - On facts, evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly
established the accusations - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302
F and 201. ·"-
t-
The appellants were prosecuted for commission of
murder of the son of PW-4. The prosecution case was that
the deceased and A-1 were not on good terms because
of the marriage of the deceased with a girl who had affair r-
G with A-1 prior to and even after her marriage with the de-
ceased. On the day of incident, the accused came to the
deceased where PW-4 and his daughter PW-5 were also y. I
present, and took him along with them on the pretext of
hunting. At about 10 P.M. PW-7 saw the deceased in the
H 1036
MANIVEL & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 1037
company of the accused; they told PW-7 that they were A
going for hunting. At about 4 A.M. the accused were seen
by PW-8 but the deceased was not with them; they told
PW-8 that they were returning from hunting. Soon there-
after the body of the deceased was found in a well. The
trial court held the accused guilty and convicted them u/ B
-+ ss 302 and 201 IPC. The High Court affirmed the convic-
tion.
In the instant appeal filed by the accused, it was con-
tended for the appellants that since accused were inimi-
cally disposed towards the deceased, the prosecution C
case that he would have gone out in their company was
highly improbable; and that the last seen theory could
not be applied in the instant case.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
D
HELD: 1.1 There is no doubt that conviction can be
i,. based solely on circumstantial evidence, but it should be
tested by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial
evidence laid down by the this Court. [para 13] [1044 G]
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. V State of E
Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343; Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622; State of
Rajasthan v. Raja Ram 2003 (8) SCC 180; State of Haryana
v. Jagbir Singh and Anr 2003 (11) sec 261 - relied on.
F
1.2 Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial
evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when
all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found
to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or
the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from G
which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn
have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt e1nd have to
be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact
sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In the
instant case, the High Court found that the evidence of H
1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
A PWs 4, 5, 7 & 8 clearly established the accusations and,
therefore, found no infirmity in the judgment of the trial
Court. [para 5 and 8] [1042 F,G 1043 A,B, 1042 C]
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 SC 1063;
Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316;
B Earabhadrappa v. State of Kamataka AIR 1983 SC 446; State
of UP v. Sukhbasi and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 1224; Ba/winder
Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1987 SC 350; Ashok Kumar
Chatterjee v. State of M.P AIR 1989 SC 1890; Bhagat Ram v.
State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621; C. Chenga Reddy and Ors.
C v. State of AP 1996 10 SCC 193; Padala Veera Reddy v.
State of AP and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 79; and State of UP v.
Ashok Kumar Srivastava 1992 Crl.LJ 1104 - referred to.
"Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) by Sir
Alfred Wills - referred to.
0
2. So far as the last seen theory is concerned, it
comes into play where the time-gap between the point of
time when the accused and the deceased were seen last
alive and when the deceased rs found dead is so small
E that possibility of any person other than the accused .be-
ing the author of the crime becomes impossible. In the
instant case, PW 7 an independent witness saw the de-
ceased in the company of the accused persons at 10 P.M.
on 10.8.1989 and early next morning his dead body was
F found in a well. [para 7 and 17] [1042 E,F] [1046-D,E]
State of UP v. Satish 2005 (3) SCC 114 ; Ramreddy ·1-.
Rajeshkhanna Reddy v. State of AP. 2006 (10) SCC 172;
Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab 2005(12) SCC 438; and
Kusuma Ankama Rao v State of AP. 2008(10) SCR 89 - re-
G lied on.
3. On consideration of the background facts in the
light of evidence on record, it is clear that the trial court
and the High Court were justified in holding the appel-
H !ants guilty. [para 20] [1047 C]
MANIVEL & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 1039
• Case Law Reference: A
AIR 1977 SC 1063 referred to [para 8]
AIR 1956 SC 316 referred to [para 8]
AIR 1983 SC 446 referred to [para 8]
AIR 1985 SC 1224 referred to [para 8] B
-+ [para 8]
AIR 1987 SC 350 referred to
AIR 1989 SC 1890 referred to [para 8]
AIR 1954 SC 621 referred to [para 8]
(1996) 10 sec 193 referred to [para 9]
c
AIR 1990 SC 79 referred to [para 10]
1992 Crl.LJ 1104) referred to [para 11]
AIR 1952 SC 343 relied on [para 14]
D
AIR 1984 SC 1622 relied on [para 15]
2003 (8) sec 180 relied on [para 16]
2003 (11) sec 261 relied on [para 16]
2008(10) SCR 89 relied on [para 16] E
2005 (3) sec 114 relied on [para 17]
2006 (10) sec 112 relied on [para 18]
2005(12) sec 438 relied on [para 19]
~
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal F
> No. 473 of 2001
From the final Judgment and Order dated 7.11.2000 of
the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. Appeal No. 588
..
of 1991
G
R.D. Upadhyay for the Appellants .
V. Kanakaraj, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle and Prabu
,-4 Ramasubramaniam for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H
1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
,..
A Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to
the correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench
of the Madras High Court upholding the conviction of the appel-
lants for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (in short the '.IPC') and sentence of impris-
B onment for life as awarded by learned Sessions Judge, Trichi.
2. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial was as fol-
t-
lows:
Allegation was that between 10 P.M. on 10.8.1989 and 4
A.M. on 11.8.1999, the appellants murdered one Mugamuni ....
c
(hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') by strangling him to
death and threw the dead body into a well to screen themselves
from the offence. The appellants hereinafter referred to as A 1
to A5 for the sake of convenience.
D The deceased is the son of PW 4. PW 5 is the younger
sister of the deceased and PW 8 is the paternal uncle of PW 4.
PW 11 is the cousin of the deceased. PWs. 3 & 10 are also
related to the deceased. P.W.2 is the brother of P.W.12. A.2
and A.3 are cousins and A.4 is the son of maternal aunt of A.2
E and A.3. A 1 is related to A.5. The witnesses, the deceased ,I
Magamuni and accused 1 to 5 were residing at Mathagiri vii-
lage.
The deceased married one Nallangal about four months
prior to the date of incident. Said Nallangal was in illicit relation-
-,
~
F ship with A.1 and continued to hav~ the said relationship with
A.1 even after the marriage. A.1 questioned the deceased as -1(.
to why he has married Nallangal and he was also beaten by
A.1. The other accused also quarrelled with the deceased for
marrying Nallangal. This is said to be the motive for the incident
G which took place.
H
When P.W.4 was at the shandy along with his son,
Magamuni, the deceased in the case and his daughter P.W.5,
accused 1 to 4 went there and asked deceased to accompany
them. P.W.4 questioned them as to why they are taking the de-
·- ~
I
. MANIVEL & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAI, J.]
1041
ceased. The accused told him that they wanted to go for hunt- A
ing. The deceased in the company of A.1 to A.4 was seen by
P.Ws. 4 and 5 at 6 p.m. At about 10 p.m., when PW.7 alighted
at Gorimedu from a bus, saw A.1 to A.5 and the deceased pro-
ceeding towards south from north and an electric lamp was
burning at that place. P.W.7 questioned them as to where they B
were going, for which A.1 to A.5 replied that they were going for
hunting and they were in possession of sticks. The deceased
was not seen alive thereafter. At about 4 a.m. on 11.6.1989,
- P.W.8 was at the bus stop for boarding a bus and he saw A.1 to
A.5 coming towards north. When he questioned them, they told
him that they are returning after hunting.
c
PW.2, a resident of Gorimedu went to a well in-the village
to drink water and to his utter dismay found a body of a male
floating in the well. Immediately, he went to the house of his el-
der brother and informed him who advised him to lay a com- D
plaint with the village Administrative Officer. PW.2 went to the
house of PW 1 the village Administrative officer, Mathagril vii-
lage and gave a statement which was reduced into writing which
stands marked as Ex.P.1 in the case. P.W.1 prepared Ex.P.2,
his report and handed over the same to his servant with a direc- E
tion to hand over both the documents at the police station. Exs.
P.1 and P.2 were handed over to P. W.16, the writer of Balaviduthi
Police Station, who registered a case in crime No. 193of1989
under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in
'"" short 'Cr.P.C.') by preparing express reports. Ex.P.2 is the copy F
of the printed First Information Report. The investigation was
~
taken up by PW.18, the Sub Inspector of Police. On taking up
the investigation, PW.18 reached the scene of occurrence and
prepared an observation mahazar Ex. P.3. He drew a rough
sketch Ex. P.25. The body was taken out of the well and in the
G
presence of panchayatdars, he conducted inquest and during
the inquest he questioned and recorded the statements of P.Ws.
_, ~ 1, 2, 4, 5 and 12. From the statements, he realised that it is not
a case of suspicious death, but it is a case of murder and there-
fore, altered the crime from one under Section 174 Cr. P.C. to
H
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 11 S.C.R.
A Sections 302 and 201 IPC by sending his express reports,
Ex.P.27. After the inquest, the body was handed over to the In-
spector of Police, with a requisition to conduct autopsy.
3. After the investigation was completed charge sheet was
filed, the accused persons abjured guilt and therefore, they were
8 put on trial.
4. The trial court placed reliance on the evidence of PWs
4, 5, 7 & 9 to hold the accused appellant guilty.
5. In appeal the primary stand was that the concept of last
c seen theory cannot be applied in the present case. The High
Court found that the evidence of PWs 4, 5, 7 & 8 clearly estab-
••
lished the accusations and therefore, found no infirmity in the
judgment of the trial Court.
6. The primary stand for learned counsel for the appellant
D
in this appeal was that since accused persons were inimically
deposed towards the deceased, it is highly improbable that he
would have gone out in their company.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other
E hand submitted that though PWs 4 & 5 were relatives of the
deceased yet PW 7 is independent witness who saw the de-
ceased in the company of the accused persons on 10.8.1989
r
,..
in the evening and early next morning his dead body was found
in the water of a well. There is no reason wtiy they would falsely
implicate the accused. ,.
F
8. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that ..
where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the
inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating
facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the
G innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063); Eradu
and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316);
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka (Al R 1983 SC 446); State ~ '-
of UP v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224); Ba/winder
H Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok Kumar
MANIVEL & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 1043
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
"'Y
Chatterjee v. State of MP (AIR 1989 SC 1890). The circum- A
~ stances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused
is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have
to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact
sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram
v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621), it was laid down that B
-.,. where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from cir-
cumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be
such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the
offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.
9. We may also make a reference to a decision of this c
Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P (1996) 10
sec 193, wherein it has been observed thus:
"In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law
is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
D
is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must
be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances
should be complete and there should be no gap left in the
chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstan'ces must
be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused
and totally inconsistent with his innocence .... ". E
10. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P and Ors. (AIR
1990 SC 79), it was laid down that when a case rests upon
circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the follow-
ing tests: F
"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly
established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency
G
unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a
x chain so complete that there is no escape from the
conclusion that within all human probability the crime
was committed by the accused and none else; and H
1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
Y•
A (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
conviction must be complete and incapable of
explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the
guilt of the accused and such evidence should not
only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but
B should be inconsistent with his innocence.
11. In State of UP v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992
Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out that great care must be taken in
evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied
on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of
c the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the
circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully es-
tablished and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established
must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
12. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills' Circum-
D
stantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules
specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence:
(1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be
clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with
the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the
E party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal
accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstan-
tial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the
nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of
guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the inno-
F cence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any
other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be 4'-.
any reasonable doubtof the guilt of the accused, he is entitled
as of right to be acquitted".
13. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely
G
on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-
stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by
the this Court as far back as in 1952.
-;.--
14. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr V State of
H Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1952 SC 343), wherein it was observed thus:
MANIVEL & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 1045
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
"It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence A
is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which
the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first
instance be fully established and all the facts so
established should be consistent only with the hypothesis
of the guilt of the accused.Again, the circumstances should B
be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should
be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one
proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a
chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the c
innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show
that within all human probability the act must have been
done by the accused."
15. A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1984 SC 1622). D
Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been
held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is
complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured
by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words
of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial E
evidence, must be fully established. They are:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should be fully established. The
circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not
,... 'may be' established; F
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the g·uilt of the accused, that is
to say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
G
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
-¥ and tendency;
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved; and
H
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
A (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and
must show that in all human probability the act must
have been done by the accused.
B 16. These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan
v. Raja Ram (2003 (8) SCC 180), State of Haryana v. Jagbir
Singh and Anr. (2003 (11) SCC 261) and Kusuma Ankama
Rao v State of AP (Criminal Appeal No.185/2005 disposed of
on 7.7.2008)
c
17. So far as the last seen aspect is concerned it is nec-
essary to take note of two decisions of this court. In State of
UP v. Satish [2005 (3) sec 114] it was noted as follows:
"22. The last seen theory comes into play where the time-
D gap between the point of time when the accused and the
deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is
found dead is so small that possibility of any person other
than the accused being the author of the crime becomes
impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively
E establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused
when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons
coming in between exists. In the absence of any other
positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the
deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous
F to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. In this
case there is positive evidence that the deceased and the
accused were seen together by witnesses PWs. 3 and 5,
in addition to the evidence of PW-2."
18. In Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy v. State of A.P
G [2006 (10) SCC 172] it was noted as follows:
"27. The last-seen theory, furthermore, comes into play
where the time gap between the point of time when the
accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the
deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any
H
MANIVEL & ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 1047
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
person other than the accused being the author of the A
crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case the courts
should look for some corroboration".
(See also Bodh Raj v. State of J&K (2002(8) SCC 45).)"
,,. ~ 19. A similar view was also taken in Jaswant Gir v. State of B
Punjab [2005(12) SCC 438] and Kusuma Ankama Rao's case
(supra).
20. When the background facts are considered in the light
of evidence on record, it is clear that the trial court and the High
Court were justified in holding the appellants guilty,,_ The appeal C
is therefore without any merit, deserves dismissal, which we
direct.
' R.P. Appeal dismissed.
'
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "circumstantial evidence"Sign in to search